Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T00:41:47.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dry-matter intake and live-weight gain of cattle and sheep offered different grass varieties with and without clover

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

D. G. Miles ,
R. J. K. Walters  and
E. M. Evans
D. G. Miles
Affiliation:
Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth
R. J. K. Walters
Affiliation:
Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth
E. M. Evans
Affiliation:
Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth
Get access

Summary

A series of animal feeding trials was designed to determine differences between grasses in dry-matter intake and animal live-weight gain, with a view to indicating better selection criteria for improving the feeding value of herbage.

Wide differences were demonstrated in feed intake and live-weight gain between single-variety grass feeds at similar levels of digestibility.

S.37 cocksfoot gave consistently good and S.51 timothy, consistently poor responses.

Supplementation of grass feeds with red clover frequently resulted in marked improvement in feed intake and animal performance.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , February 1969 , pp. 19 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council. 1965. The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock No. 2, Ruminants, Technical Reviews and Summaries. Agricultural Research Council, London.Google Scholar
Alder, F. E. and Cooper, E. M. 1967. Comparative studies of perennial ryegrass and cocksfoot as food for the calf. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 68: 331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ap Griffith, G. and Walters, R. J. K. 1966. The sodium and potassium content of some grass genera, species and varieties. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 67: 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balch, C. C. and Campling, R. C. 1962. Regulation of voluntary food intake in ruminants. Nutr. Abstr. Rev. 32: 669–686.Google ScholarPubMed
Blaxter, K. L., Wainman, F. W. and Wilson, R. S. 1961. The regulation of food intake by sheep. Anim. Prod. 3: 51–61.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. and Wilson, R. S. 1962. The voluntary intake of roughages by steers. Anim. Prod. 4: 351–358.Google Scholar
Bosman, M. S. M. 1967. Methods of predicting herbage digestibility. Jaarb. Inst. biol. scheik. Onderz. LandbGewass, pp. 97–100.Google Scholar
Commonwealth Bureau of Pastures and Field Crops. 1961. Research techniques in use at the Grassland Research Institute, Hurley. Bull. Commonw. Bur. Past. Fid Crops, No. 45, pp. 86–91.Google Scholar
Chenost, M. 1966. Fibrousness of forages: its determination and its relation to feeding value.Proc. 10th int. Grassld Congr. pp. 406–411.Google Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Langlands, J. P. and Reid, G. W. 1963. Effects of season of growth and of digestibility of herbage on intake by grazing dairy cows. Anim. Prod. 5: 119–129.Google Scholar
Donefer, E., Crampton, E. W. and Lloyd, L. E. 1960. Prediction of the nutritive value index of a forage from in vitro fermentation data. J. Anim. Sci. 19: 545–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, P. S. 1964. A study of leaf strength in four ryegrass varieties. N.Z. J. agric. Res. 7: 508–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grassland Research Institute, Hurley. 1965. Annual Report for 1965, pp. 39–40.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. and Walters, R. J. K. 1965. Digestibility and leaf. Ann. Rep. Welsh PL Breed. Stn for 1964, pp. 77–80.Google Scholar
Miles, D. G., ap Griffith, G. and Walters, R. J. K. 1964. The effect of ‘winter burn’ on the chemical composition and in vitro dry matter digestibility of eight grasses. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 19: 75–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minson, D. J. 1963. The effect of pelleting and wafering on the feeding value of roughages —a review. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 18: 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minson, D. J., Harris, C. E., Raymond, W. F. and Milford, R. 1964. The digestibility and voluntary intake of S.22 and H.I ryegrass, S.170 tall fescue, S.48 timothy, S.215 meadow fescue and Germinal cocksfoot. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 19: 298–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minson, D. J. and Milford, R. 1967. The voluntary intake and digestibility of diets containing different proportions of legume and mature Pangola grass. Aust. J. exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 7: 546–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minson, D. J. and Milford, R. 1967. In vitro and faecal nitrogen techniques for predicting the voluntary intake of Chloris gayana. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 22: 170–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osbourn, D. F. 1967. The intake of conserved forages. Occ. Symp. Br. Grassld Soc. No. 3 (Fodder conservation), pp. 20–28.Google Scholar
Osbourn, D. F., Thomson, D. J. and Terry, R. A. 1966. The relationship between voluntary intake and digestibility of forage crops, using sheep.Proc. 10th int. Grassld Congr. pp. 363–367.Google Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. and Terry, R. A. 1963. A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 18: 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troelsen, J. E. and Bigsby, F. W. 1964. Artificial mastication—a new approach for predicting forage consumption by ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. 23: 1139–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. 1965. Symposium on factors influencing voluntary intake of herbage by ruminants; voluntary intake in relation to chemical composition. J. Anim. Sci. 24: 834–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, R. J. K. 1966. Prediction of digestibility. Rep. Welsh PL Breed. Stn for 1965, pp. 70–72.Google Scholar
Walters, R. J. K., ap Griffith, G., Hughes, R. and Jones, D. I. H. 1967. Some factors causing differences in digestibility of grasses measured by an in vitro method. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 22: 112–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, D. C. 1966. Data on the mineral composition of grassland herbage from the Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, and the Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth. Tech. Rep. Grassld Res. Inst., Hurley, No. 4.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. 1965. Nutritive value and the genetic relationship of cellulose content and leaf tensile strength in Lolium. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 65: 285–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar